The Supreme Courtroom on Monday dismissed a plea filed by TV In the present day Community difficult a Delhi High Court order upholding the award of ₹5 lakh damages towards it for violating the privateness and confidentiality rights of a kid sexual abuse sufferer by airing particulars able to revealing her id.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana rejected the broadcaster’s argument that the Excessive Courtroom had erred in holding that the media performs a public function and might due to this fact be subjected to writ jurisdiction underneath Article 226 of the Structure.
The Senior Advocate showing for TV In the present day argued that the Excessive Courtroom had ignored the rules laid down in its personal judgment whereas holding that the broadcaster was performing a “public perform”, making it amenable to Article 226 jurisdiction.
“Please see the impugned order. The court docket says that we’re performing a public perform. The court docket utterly ignores the rules it itself lays down,” the counsel submitted, referring to the assessments laid down within the judgment.
Justice Bagchi, nonetheless, questioned the broadcaster’s stand on the problem of maintainability.
“Are you significantly arguing on maintainability? That prayer is out of query,” Justice Bagchi remarked.
The senior counsel submitted that there was a bigger difficulty as as to whether the press could possibly be mentioned to have discharged a public perform for the aim of entertaining a writ petition.
Justice Bagchi responded that the press contributes to the liberty of speech and expression assured underneath Article 19(1)(a) of the Structure.
“What does the press do however contribute to Article 19(1)(a)? When your entry to the web is stopped, you’ll invoke Article 19(1)(a). Now, when tort is awarded, you say this isn’t a public perform? There’s a distinction between sovereign and public perform,” the choose noticed.
CJI Surya Kant additionally questioned why the broadcaster was reluctant to acknowledge the significance of the perform carried out by the press.
“You’re a highly effective media participant. You possibly can have bona fide mentioned that what you probably did may be in public curiosity, however…” the CJI remarked.
Later, the CJI mentioned that the media ought to, in truth, take delight in performing a public responsibility of nice significance fairly than denying it merely as a defence in litigation.
“It’s a very settled precept. However as my brother identified, you must fairly proudly say that you simply carry out a public responsibility of paramount significance. Why must you really feel shy and argue in any other case solely as a defence? You need to proudly say so,” the CJI mentioned.
The counsel contended that treating the press as performing a public perform would expose media organisations to the “rigours of Article 226”, including that this might open the floodgates to a number of writ petitions. He additionally referred to a Division Bench judgment of the Excessive Courtroom which, in line with him, had held that the press doesn’t carry out a public perform for the aim of entertaining a writ towards it.
Justice Bagchi identified that the sufferer had particularly pursued proceedings towards TV In the present day and had expressed her unwillingness to take part within the publication of the incident, however the broadcaster however went forward with the telecast.
The CJI then noticed that if TV In the present day wished, the quantity of ₹5 lakh might merely be handled as a “small voluntary donation” from its aspect.
When the senior counsel once more submitted {that a} bigger difficulty was concerned and that the choice might result in the opening of floodgates, the Courtroom disagreed.
“That is rightly answered by the Excessive Courtroom,” the Bench mentioned.
When the counsel reiterated that the judgment would open the floodgates to related proceedings, the Courtroom remarked: “We encourage it.”
Case : TV TODAY NETWORK LIMITED v. ABC AND ORS.| SLP(C) No. 27299/2026
